 |
|
|
Proposed Pacifica elections guidelines 5-7-02 |
Suggestions for Incorporation into Pacifica’s Election Bylaws
Submitted By:
Table of Contents Suggestions Pertaining to Listener Seats * Number of LAB Members, Term of LAB Members, Staggering
of Elections * Grandfathering of Present LAB Members * Public Explication of the Tallying Process * Suggestions Pertaining to Staff Seats * Separate Elections for Paid and Unpaid Staff * No Staggering of Staff Elections * Automatic Candidate Qualification for Staff Elections * Restrictions Pertaining to LAB Representatives Elected
by Staff * The agreement that resulted from the settlement of Pacifica’s lawsuits states
that bylaws governing the election of Pacifica’s five Local Advisory Boards
will be drafted by the end of this year, and that these will use the rules that
governed the successful KPFA LAB elections of 2000 and 2001 as their starting
point. Since the KPFA elections were fairly successful events, it seems reasonable
that changes proposed to the KPFA rules should be based mainly upon expected
differences between the circumstances that pertained to KPFA’s past elections
in the Bay Area on the one hand, and those that will pertain to elections that
will be held in the changed overall circumstances of 2002 and beyond, in not
only Berkeley but in the four other signal areas. The expected differences include the following: Suggestions fall into a number of different categories, which are elaborated
below. Suggestions Pertaining to Listener Seats Number of LAB Members, Term of LAB Members, Staggering
of Elections I suggest that the number of listener-elected seats be increased from 14 to
15, and the length of a term be increased from two years to three years, so
that five candidates will be elected every year to fill vacancies caused by
term expirations. This will help to ensure that the LAB is not suddenly taken
over by a surprise electoral manipulation. It will also help to ensure that
we always have experienced members on the LAB. Grandfathering of Present LAB Members Up to five members of the current LAB should be grandfathered in for a term
of one year, and up to five additional members for a period of two years, so
that the other third of the 15 listener-elected seats can be elected (for a
three year term) in the first election. This is intended to ensure continuity, and in fact was done in the first KPFA
election (based upon 2-year rather than 3-year terms). The pre-election LABs should be allowed to choose a balanced (for diversity)
group of up to ten members from among itself as the "grandfathered"
members, if it can agree unanimously upon such a group as well as the length
of each candidate’s remaining term. If it cannot agree, then the iPNB should be required to choose by a simple
majority vote for this first election from among those LAB candidates who are
willing to serve for an additional year, a group of up to ten (depending upon
how many are willing to serve) that are as balanced as possible diversity-wise.
If fewer than ten are available, then as many as are available will be grandfathered,
with the first five getting one-year terms and the remainder getting two-year
terms. In case there are more than five seats left to elect in our first election
as a result of this process, then the highest five candidates in the ordering
for the first election will get three year seats, the next candidates will get
two year seats, and the remaining candidates will get one year seats, until
all seats are filled. If the iPNB is unable to choose, then a diversity-balanced set of up to ten
will be chosen at random (random, that is, except for the diversity requirements). Diversity requirements must be applied to the first five grandfathered candidates,
and to the remaining grandfathered candidates, independently. A balanced group of ten means that ideally no fewer than four members from
each diversity cohort will be present. NOTE: If, due to the unavailability of a diverse set of current LAB members,
a less then ideally diverse set of 10 members is grandfathered, this should
be quickly corrected by the application of diversity criteria for the first
and subsequent elections in the new manner suggested by this document, which
is based upon the entire 15 listener seats and not just the 5 or more being
elected in any given election (see below). In other words, if the entire 10
grandfathered LAB seats were white males, then diversity criteria would ensure
that every candidate elected in the first and subsequent elections would be
predominantly of color, or women, or both, (if such candidates were available)
until balance was restored. Signatures I suggest that the number of signatures of eligible voters that are required
to nominate a candidate be increased from 10 to 50. The KPFA method allows candidates to qualify with only 10 signatures. This
could result in a field of candidates that is too full for voters to be able
to properly consider the choices before them. I believe that 50 signatures would be a more reasonable
number. That would raise the bar just enough to eliminate obvious crank candidates,
but should be low enough to allow any candidates with serious support to qualify. Pledge of Support for Pacifica’s Mission All candidates should be required to sign a pledge that they will support Pacifica’s
mission statement. On-air Personalities "On-air personalities" should be specifically prevented from running
for listener LAB seats. I propose that we define an on-air personality as anyone who has spent more
than 20 hours on the air over the past year – which would be just over 20 minutes
per week average, or more than a total of 4 hours (exclusive of on-air
candidates’ forums) during the 45 day signature gathering period. This would
include callers to call-in programs if they identify themselves by name on the
air. Any half-hour interval during which the person spoke at all would count
toward this total. Also, any candidate who logged more than 4 hours on the air during the 30 day
campaign period (other than at on-air candidates’ forums), even if no mention
of that person’s candidacy were made, should be automatically disqualified. Note: Such on-air personalities are members of station staff, and therefore
may run for the LAB in the staff elections. This restriction is mainly intended
to prevent on-air personalities from dominating the listener elections due to
their high profiles and disproportionate access to the air. Campaigning On the Air Candidates should not be allowed to appear on the air speaking on her or his
candidacy during the 30-day campaigning period, outside of the official on-air
candidates’ forums. Such on-air campaigning should result in immediate disqualification.
Paid Staff Members Prohibited from Running for Listener Seats Paid staff should be prohibited from running for listener seats, due to the
conflict of interest involved in having voting seats on the LAB while being
an employee of the station (i.e., for the same reason that the four seats elected
by paid staff should be non-voting seats, as described in the section titled
"Restrictions Pertaining to LAB Representatives Elected by Staff"). Sitting Lab Members Prohibited from Running Before Expiration of Term Sitting LAB members whose terms are not expiring at the end of the current
election process should be prohibited from running. For example, if some LAB
member had one year left and wanted to run in order to obtain a three-year term,
that would be prohibited. This is intended to give non-incumbents more of a chance, and to reduce election
overhead. It also is intended to preserve the staggering of terms. Also, we should prohibit a LAB member who has resigned from her or his seat
from running again until the election that coincides with what otherwise would
have been the expiration of her or his term. Compensation for Votes Any candidate who either personally attempts to exchange money or favors for
votes, or whose campaign does the same with their knowledge, should be disqualified. Disqualification by Sitting LAB Members Not Running for Re-election Those LAB members who are not running for re-election in the current election
may, by a 2/3 majority (that is, 2/3 of the group that is not running for re-election),
disqualify any candidate on the following grounds: In order to exercise this prerogative, the LAB members voting to disqualify
a candidate must state the reasons that they believe that the candidate satisfies
their grounds for disqualification. No formal proof is required. The theory
is that LAB members who frivolously disqualify a candidate using this mechanism
will be punished by voters when they themselves come up for election one or
two years hence. In fact, if voters are sufficiently outraged by the frivolous
exercise of this prerogative, they may initiate an immediate recall election
against the offending LAB members. This would prevent the LAB members from disqualifying
candidates who were running against them. The problem with this is that if the electorate has been sufficiently
taken over to elect such a candidate in the first place, then there may well
be a sufficient number of voters to recall the LAB members who have legitimately
exercised their protective function. Such an option to disqualify a candidate may also be exercised at the time
of a recall election. This means that if an elected LAB member reveals by her
or his behavior that she or he is a "stalking horse" for some hostile
organization, and listeners therefore sign the necessary petitions to activate
a recall election (which is for the entire slate of candidates elected in the
election of the candidate to be recalled), the sitting LAB members not running
in that recall election may directly disqualify the candidate in question, which
would prevent that candidate from possibly being elected by voters who were
supporters of that hostile organization and who may have become qualified to
vote by making a contribution that was specifically made in order to bring the
"stalking horse" candidate onto the LAB. Note that the effectiveness of the measure depends upon consistently electing
trustworthy members to the LABs. We are depending upon the judgment and good
will of sitting LAB members to save the organization from candidates who may
be toxic to the organization. If a bad batch of LAB members somehow became elected
and was not recalled within a year then these could prevent a 2/3 majority of
the sitting LAB from disqualifying unfriendly candidates in the next
election. The price of freedom, and so on. Since Pacifica is a mission-based organization, the ideal voter in a LAB election
would be someone who: Voter qualification procedures should be designed in a manner that tends to
select voters who satisfy the above criteria. Clearly, these criteria must work
in combination with voter education to not only select persons who already meet
the above criteria, but to educate voters so that they do meet the above
criteria. This is, of course, a very tricky and imprecise process. Here are
some suggested qualifying criteria. Contribution of Money to the Listener and LAB Lawsuits or to the Pacifica
Campaign Since the listener and LAB lawsuits and the Pacifica Campaign were strongly
focused upon returning Pacifica to its mission, and since such contributors
would generally have a better than average knowledge of the issues that affect
Pacifica and its mission, any person who contributed money to the lawsuits or
to the Pacifica Campaign in the amount of $25.00 or more at any time prior to
January 1, 2002 should be allowed to vote in the first LAB election following
the mediated settlement, regardless of other qualifying criteria. Contribution of Money to the Station Contribution of money to the station is a more weak and conditional indicator
of support for Pacifica’s mission than is a contribution to the listener and
LAB lawsuits or to the Pacifica Campaign. At stations where programming has
been generally focused upon Pacifica’s mission in the period immediately prior
to the time that the contribution was given, it is a fairly good indicator of
support for Pacifica’s mission. However, at stations that have in the past strayed
from or even abandoned Pacifica’s mission, such as KPFT and WPFW, such contributions
are a very poor indicator of support for Pacifica’s mission, and may even be
likely to identify persons who are actively hostile to that mission, inasmuch
as mission-supportive programming competes with the non-mission-related programming
(e.g., country music) that they would rather hear. Therefore, I propose that for the first election only, different criteria be
applied to the various stations regarding voter qualification on the basis of
contributions: Obviously, the above is a subjective evaluation. More precise criteria for
mission compliance (which are needed anyway) should be developed and used to
come up with dates that may be more precise than those presented above. Local
LABs and listeners’ organizations should also be consulted. Contribution of Labor Contribution of labor of 3 hours or more to a mission-compliant station provides
a good indicator of support for the station and its mission, as well as knowledge
of issues affecting the station. Enfranchisement on this basis should be subject
to the same station-specific restrictions regarding the date on which volunteer
activity was recorded as are described above for the contribution of money.
That is, only volunteer activity on behalf of a station whose programming is
fairly mission-compliant at the time the activity occurred should be a basis
for enfranchisement. Proof of such service will be in the form of an affidavit signed by the volunteer
coordinator of the station, or else may be based upon any station records that
were maintained regarding such volunteer activity, for only those stations
that maintained such records in a consistent and uniform manner. I do not believe that adequate records have been maintained of volunteer work
with the listener and LAB lawsuits or with the Pacifica campaign to allow for
enfranchisement on that basis. If this is incorrect, then such enfranchisement
should be considered. Constituency-based Criteria Sufficient Only in Combination with Other Criteria Membership in certain constituencies can be a good predictor of a predisposition
toward agreement with Pacifica’s mission based upon either self-interest or
the lessons learned about the status quo and the need for alternative views
that come from being a member of those groups. However, such membership alone
is no indication at all of knowledge of, or even interest in, the station, its
issues, or of the positions of the candidates who are running for the LAB. Therefore, I do not support enfranchisement of people based solely upon their
membership in a particular constituency. Instead, I suggest that membership
in a constituency should be used in combination with other criteria
whose satisfaction indicates an interest in and knowledge of Pacifica’s mission,
and of the candidates. Specifically, I suggest that membership in certain constituencies should result
in enfranchisement if application for such enfranchisement is made in person
at an official candidates’ night election event. Presence at such an event gives
a strong indication of interest in Pacifica and its mission, and would virtually
ensure a working knowledge of the candidates and of the issues surrounding the
election. Since most people who support Pacifica would be willing to contribute money
to it if they could afford to, and therefore would qualify on that basis, the
constituencies selected for special enfranchisement should be further limited
to those that include a large number of people who have very little money. I suggest that the following groups be allowed to receive ballots and to vote
even without making a contribution of money or labor, if application for such
a ballot is made in person at the end of a candidates’ night event: I suggest that an official representative or representatives of the Election
Coordinator should be required to be present at each official candidates’ night
event, and that such representatives should be empowered to test for the above
criteria and to issue ballots (with name, address and a PIN number filled in)
to those who satisfy it (see "Instant Voter Registration," below). I would personally like to enfranchise interested prisoners, but it seems to
me that there are problems with this. The prisoner is living in an extremely
vulnerable situation and his or her vote could easily be coerced or a ballot
sent to the prisoner could be stolen. And, of course, there is no way for a
prisoner to attend a campaign event in order to register in person, so how could
we know that that person is truly interested in Pacifica and its issues? I would
like the iPNB to think further about this but as of the present writing I cannot
make a strong recommendation one way or the other. Instant Voter Registration In the KPFA model, voter qualification is a passive activity. That is, people
who have already contributed in the interval prior to the campaign
period, or who have already done volunteer work in this prior interval,
are qualified by that process. I suggest that, in addition to such passive
registration, registration of voters should be continued in a highly controlled
manner (at candidates’ night events only) during the campaign interval as an
active process through which people who have been inspired by the candidates
and informed by the campaign process can make a commitment to the station during
the campaign interval and hence become qualified to vote. I suggest that we
build these candidates’ night events into huge events that will bring
more mission-supportive people into the elections and into membership at the
station. To accomplish this, I suggest that listeners who attend, in person, an officially
recognized candidates’ night, should be able to instantly qualify as eligible
voters based upon the combination of the fact of their attendance at that event
plus either a qualifying donation made at the event or the presentation of evidence
that they belong to one of the constituencies described above (e.g., unemployed,
welfare recipients, etc.). Such instant registration will be possible only at such officially recognized
candidates’ night events, and will be performed only by official representatives
of the Election Coordinator. Such a representative would be required to be present
at each such official candidates’ night event. Once a person qualifies via instant registration at an event, a ballot will
be filled in (with identifying information only) on the spot with that person’s
name and address by the representative of the Election Coordinator who registered
that person. The address supplied must be verified at the event using positive
I.D. (e.g., drivers’ license, etc.). Each ballot in the stack of ballots brought to such an event will be pre-printed
with a PIN number, and all ballots at an event will have PIN numbers in a certain
range that will be recorded in advance by the Election Coordinator. In the event
of the loss or theft of ballots at an event, all ballots in the associated range
other than those specifically recorded as having been given to qualified voters
(i.e., all ballots not accounted for) will be disqualified. Statement of Support for Pacifica’s Mission Each ballot should contain the full text of Pacifica’s Mission Statement (Article
II, sections c, d and e), and voters should be required to sign a statement
affirming that they support Pacifica’s mission and that they will vote for those
candidates who they believe are most likely to successfully carry it out. Disqualifying Criteria Any voter who accepts compensation of any kind in exchange for voting for a
certain candidate should be disqualified. Candidates’ Night Forums If a community group wishes to hold a campaign forum, it may do so, and may
invite any candidates that it wishes – not just the entire set. I don’t see
how we can practically prevent this. If we were to disqualify any candidate
who attended such a non-sanctioned event, how could we distinguish between legitimate
community meetings on other topics that this person may be attending or leading
and a campaign event? It would simply be unenforceable, and, if somehow enforced,
would result in an unacceptable interruption of the valuable organizing activities
performed by many effective community leaders who might be running for LAB seats. However, certain advantages should be provided only to officially recognized
forums (such as on-site instant voter registration, as described above, and
announcements of the forum on the air) that will not be provided to other events.
To be an officially sanctioned forum, the following criteria must be met: All candidates must be invited to the forum The organizers of the forum must inform the election coordinator of the date,
time and location of the forum at least eight days prior to its occurrence.
The coordinator is responsible for letting all candidates know of the forum
in time for them to attend if they should choose to do so, and for ensuring
that announcements occur on the air and by other means (e.g., the station’s
Web site) in a timely manner. Official forums may not overlap in time, as in that case all candidates will
not be able to attend. In cases where people are organizing forums and request
the same time slot and an understanding cannot be arranged, the Election Coordinator
may suggest the combining of the forums. If either group is unwilling to do
this, then the Election Coordinator has the right to decide which group’s forum
will be granted official status. The moderator for the forum must be supplied by the Election Coordinator’s
office. If a forum is an "official" forum, the Election Coordinator will
provide the following advantages to it: Special Statements and Other Campaign Materials Produced by Paid Staff Paid staff, since it would be deprived of voting LAB representation under this
proposal, should get to make a joint statement that is signed only as "paid
staff" (not with any individuals’ names) reflecting its views on candidates
in the listener elections. Ideally, this statement would reflect paid staff’s
perception of the impact that the various candidates would have upon working
conditions and the "on the ground" functioning of the station, but
it should not be officially restricted in any way. This statement would be inserted
into the packets accompanying every mailed ballot, along with candidates’ statements.
In addition, paid staff would be able to submit a certain (TBD) number of questions
to be asked of candidates at every candidates’ forum, both on-air and off, and
could submit a statement regarding the candidates of a certain length (say,
one page) which would be read at each such forum. They could also make endorsements.
But none of their individual names could appear on any of this material. The philosophy at work here is that paid staff should be given a chance to
take its case and its preferences for certain listener candidates to the listeners,
who, as parties without a personal conflict of interest, should ultimately decide
whether to accept or reject the views and listener candidates that have been
identified as desirable or undesirable by staff. Similar statements might be considered for inclusion by unpaid staff, as well,
but these should be more limited (in terms of length of statement and number
of questions) than those of paid staff, since unpaid staff would have voting
seats under this proposal. The STV method should be left in place, unchanged from the KPFA model, for
the first phase of election processing. Diversity criteria should also continue to be applied. I support diversity
criteria because it will help to break up the cycle of an audience that is out
of balance racially or gender-wise electing an out-of-balance LAB which then
targets programming to the audience that elected it, which in turn selects more
listeners of the same type, who in turn elect still more LAB members of their
own race and/or gender, and so on. However, diversity criteria raises the possibility that a candidate who had
very little popular support might be declared elected due to a shortage of candidates
for a particular cohort. The true solution to this problem is to recruit an
adequate number of well-qualified candidates from each of the diversity cohorts.
However, as an added measure, I suggest that a minimum number of total votes
(including transferred votes) should be specified as required in order for a
candidate to be considered for promotion during diversity processing. This test
for minimum votes will be applied at the point just before a candidate that
has been eliminated from the "Continuing Candidates" during STV has
its votes transferred to other candidates who are still in the "Continuing"
set. Say, ten percent of the STV "quota" required to positively elect
a candidate. Any candidate not having this minimum number of votes at the end
of STV should be eliminated from consideration, unless they are already part
of the seven candidates who are highest in the STV ordering. This will prevent
candidates having less than this minimum amount of voter support from being
selected solely on the basis of diversity criteria. For example, in an election of five open seats involving 10,000 returned ballots,
the STV quota would be 10,000/5, or 2,000, and therefore 10 percent of that
amount, or 200 ballots, would be required at a minimum in order to consider
a candidate for promotion during diversity processing. I also suggest that diversity criteria be applied based upon target goals for
the racial and gender balance of the entire LAB, not the seats being
elected during a given year (which was the KPFA approach). This will work to
prevent cumulative imbalances from building up over the years. The KPFA rules for applying diversity criteria are ambiguous, and this has
caused problems in past KPFA elections. The definition of those rules in the
KPFA approach is as follows (from http://www.cfdp.org/Democratization/labprop3.htm): "E.4 The goal of the election is to have near-equal representation of
gender and race/ethnicity among the 14 Listener/community representatives. This
means the Board should seat no more than 8 men or 8 women, AND no more than
8 racial/ethnic minorities (or people of color) or 8 non-minority. Accordingly,
the resulting Board balance should be 6-8 or 7-7 on each of these two diversity
characteristics (gender and race/ethnicity) depending on the results of each
year's election. "E.5 Because seats will be staggered two-year terms, each year's election
will typically elect half (either 3 or 4) of each diversity cohort. "E.6 The Election Coordinator will determine the winning candidates using
the Choice Voting method of counting preferential votes, with the added criteria
of meeting the diversity goals. This modified system will elect the most-preferred
candidates whose addition to the board best meets that year's diversity goals,
skipping candidates if necessary. I suggest that the more rigorous criteria devised by Voting Solutions, the
company that created the program used to tally KPFA’s elections, should be used.
That method for applying diversity criteria is as follows: The latest version of the "Choice Plus" program as modified by Voting
Solutions for the KPFA elections supports the feature of running STV with some
candidates declared as "undefeatable," which is necessary for the
above processing to be used. If the above does not quite make sense to you yet, take a look at the presentation
on the KPFA elections that can be found at: http://pw1.netcom.com/~cgunther/fpnn/PreparingForKPFKLABElection_files/frame.htm For an example showing how the STV process (without diversity criteria) is
used by the Choice Plus program to process an actual election, visit http://www.fpnn.org,
select FPNN CC Election Reports, and then select the link labeled "Election
of the FPNN’s reps to the General Manager Search Committee." Election Tallying Software I suggest that "Choice Plus," the same program as was used for the
KPFA elections, be used for all LAB elections. Since the full version of this
program costs $15,000, I suggest that we look into licensing it for all of Pacifica
rather than separately for each signal area. Internet Voting Should be Disallowed Internet voting, which was allowed during the KPFA elections, should be disallowed,
because it makes voting more convenient, and hence more likely, for people who
are on the enabled side of the digital divide. Validation of an election is one of our most important defenses against attempts
by corrupt candidates or by outside organizations to manipulate our electoral
process. I suggest that the Election Coordinator should be allowed to declare that a
situation has arisen that calls into question the validity of the election.
This may be done at any time from the start of the Campaign period until one
week after all results have been tallied. Results of the election should not
be announced until the elections results have been certified by the Election
Coordinator. If the Election Coordinator declares the election’s validity to be questionable,
a vote will be taken among all of those sitting LAB members who were not
candidates in the current election. If a simple majority of those LAB members
agree that the election was invalid, then the reasons for this decision must
be announced and the election will have to be held again as soon as the problems
that led to its being voided can be corrected. In the meantime, sitting LAB
members will remain seated through the expiration of their present terms. If
any seats expire while the new election is being organized, those members will
cease to have voting rights until the new election has been held. If the Election Coordinator does not declare the election’s validity to be
questionable, then those sitting LAB members who were not candidates in the
present election may declare it to be invalid provided that at least two thirds
of them agree that that is the case. The following are some of the criteria that should be considered as a basis
for invalidating an election: By limiting voting to those LAB members who are not candidates and by requiring
a super-majority unless the Election Coordinator initiates the process, we will
tend to prevent abuses of the validation process. This makes it possible to
allow an election to be invalidated based upon criteria that are defined in
a fairly broad manner (e.g., the criteria described above). Note: Other than the above, the other remedy for a bogus election is the recall
process, which also results in a completely new election. Recall Provisions Rather than requiring that the entire LAB be recalled if any member is to be
recalled, I suggest that only those Board members who were all originally elected
during the same earlier election (including their successors due to the
filling of vacancies) may be recalled in any particular recall election. I suggest two different levels of recall election, one of which can be activated
by gathering a number of signatures from eligible voters equal to only 10 percent
of all votes cast, and the other of which can be activated only with a number
of signatures equal to at least 20 percent of all votes cast in the earlier
election during which the seats to be recalled were elected. In the "10 percent" recall election, all LAB members and their
successors who were elected in a particular election (typically, five
members for any given election) must be recalled in that case, forcing a new
election to be held for those same seats involving the same candidates as in
the prior election, plus, at the option of those collecting the signatures
(and this must be stated in advance, on their recall petitions, so people know
what kind of a recall they are signing for) any candidates from the two elections
before that election (that is, the two elections that resulted in the
election of the other members of the current sitting LAB and their successors
due to vacancies, if any) who are not currently sitting on the LAB, except of
course for those persons who declare themselves as being unwilling to serve.
So, the "10 percent" recall involves two variations: one with only
the same candidates as in the original election as participants, and the other
with a broader field allowing candidates from the original election plus the
two prior elections as participants. The latter option is intended to deal with
a situation in which two few candidates would be available under the former,
more restrictive, option. The petitions provided for either option should be
standardized and only official petitions, as approved by the Election Coordinator,
should be accepted. Under the "10 percent" recall option there is no nomination period,
and the campaign period is shortened to 15 days, including at least one on-air
forum, which should be long enough to explain to people the issues that led
to the recall election. A "20 percent" recall election is the same as a "10 percent"
recall election, except that instead of drawing candidates from the two prior
elections, only those who were candidates in the election that resulted
in the seating of the recalled LAB members (including the recalled members themselves)
are automatically qualified to run in the recall election, and additional
candidates may be nominated in the usual manner without the necessity of their
having run in a prior election. In other words, the full nomination period plus
campaign period are re-run in a "20 percent" recall election, making
this a significantly more burdensome option. We need this option in order to
deal with a situation in which insufficient numbers of acceptable candidates
from prior elections are available to run, so that those sitting on the LAB
can still be recalled in that situation if required. Recall of an individual LAB member should still not be supported. This is because
such a recall could allow the majority to remove a LAB member who represented
a minority viewpoint, thereby defeating proportional representation and/or diversity
adjustments. However, by recalling all of those LAB members who were
seated during a particular election (as described above), we avoid the
problem of the majority ganging up to remove a LAB member who represents a minority
viewpoint, without having to re-elect the entire LAB. Diversity criteria in such a recall election should be applied based upon the
numbers of people in each diversity cohort of the seated LAB members who were
recalled, rather than that of the entire present Board at the time of
the recall election. That is, if there happened to be three persons of color
and two not of color elected in the election in question, then the new election’s
diversity target will be at least two persons of color and at least one person
not of color (that is, we allow "wiggle room" of one seat in our diversity
criteria, just as is allowed in the regular elections). In the event of such a recall, the recall election should be run with all candidates
from the original election who are still willing to serve, only. This will reduce
the overhead of the election process by eliminating the nomination and campaign
intervals that would be present for a regular election. Those elected in such a recall election should only be able to serve out the
remaining term of the original candidates. Other Disqualifications Any LAB member sitting in a listener-elected seat or an unpaid staff seat (i.e.,
a seat having voting rights on the LAB) who accepts a paid position on staff
will automatically lose membership on the LAB, creating a vacancy to be filled
in the manner prescribed elsewhere in this document. Any LAB member who accepts compensation or favors in exchange for actions as
a LAB member should be removed, creating a vacancy to be filled in the prescribed
manner. I am not certain how determination of such acceptance should be made.
The obvious method would be to have a unanimous vote of all LAB members other
than that member. However, this could conceivably result in the majority removing
a representative of a minority viewpoint based upon that person’s views. Another
approach would be to require that all LAB candidates sign a legally binding
contract agreeing to resign if found to have accepted such a bribe. Then, the
case could be decided in a civil court. If our lawyers determine that this option
is not feasible, then it may be necessary to leave the removal of members accepting
bribes up to the regular recall process. Vacancies should be filled by consulting the ballot records of the most recent
election and choosing the candidate who would have been selected by the tallying
process had the removed LAB member not been running in that election (if the
candidate ran in the last election) or else the next-most-preferred candidate
from the last election if the removed LAB member was not a candidate in that
election. If no such candidate were available, then the seat should remain unfilled.
Any such replacement LAB member would serve only the remainder of the removed
member’s term. If total membership on the LAB drops below a certain number (say,
10), as a result of unfilled vacancies, then a special election can be called
to fill the vacant seats, but those elected will only serve the remainder of
the terms of the vacating members who they are replacing. Those rated highest
by the tallying process in that case would fill the vacancies having the longest
remaining time in their terms. Public Explication of the Tallying Process At each official on-air and community candidates’ forum, the voting process
should be explained to people. Such explanation could include the following: It would be OK for these materials to be provided even after the voter
submits the ballot. They are mainly important so that people can understand
the outcome and confirm that it conforms to the process that was defined for
vote combining and diversity adjustment. A clear description of the actual number of votes received by each candidate,
the various stages of vote combining during STV, and the application of diversity
criteria, should be published on the Internet. Choice Plus software already supplies a specific "trace" of its processing
that would serve to explain the STV part of the election’s tallying to the voters.
We need to extend that tracing or else supplement it by manually preparing an
explanation of what occurred during diversity-related processing. Suggestions Pertaining to Staff Seats Separate Elections for Paid and Unpaid Staff The paid and unpaid staff elections should be separate. Volunteer staff should not be allowed to run in paid staff elections, and paid
staff should not be allowed to run in volunteer staff elections Staff elections should be required to be by secret ballot, and should be supervised
by the Elections Coordinator. The method of tallying votes and of diversity criteria should be the same as
for the listener-elected seats, only adjusted for the number of seats (4) to
be elected. No Staggering of Staff Elections Since staff has fewer seats than the listeners have, in order to support the
use of proportional representation, all paid seats and all unpaid seats, respectively,
should be elected at the same time – i.e., staff elections should not be staggered,
and staff should be allowed to decide itself upon the appropriate length of
a term. Automatic Candidate Qualification for Staff Elections No nominating signatures should be required for a staff member. Anyone who
wishes to run should be placed on the ballot. This is to avoid any management
harassment of paid or unpaid staff during the signature gathering process, which
will almost certainly have to occur at the station and therefore would expose
staff’s preferences for candidates to management and others, destroying some
of the secrecy of the voters’ choices. There are not that many paid and unpaid
staff, so hopefully there would not be an impractical number of candidates.
The STV voting method does not require that every candidate be listed on every
ballot, so people could deal with an overwhelmingly large field of candidates
by voting only for those with whom they were familiar if they so chose. Unpaid staff may run for a listener seat if they like, so long as they are
not on-air personalities. The same person may not run for both a listener and
an unpaid staff seat No paid staff member should be allowed to run for a listener seat without first
resigning from her or his paid position. Both paid and unpaid staff should be allowed to vote for LAB candidates
running for listener seats. Restrictions Pertaining to LAB
Representatives Elected by Staff Paid Staff Because we are moving into a situation in which the LABs are likely to have
more input on personnel and programming issues at the station, it would be a
conflict of interest for LAB representatives elected by paid staff (who are
therefore staff members themselves) to vote on the LAB. For example, retribution could be threatened by other (non-staff or staff)
members of the LAB, thereby compromising the independence of their votes. Also, and more obviously, paid staff might vote in favor of policies that directly
benefit them as employees. Therefore, I suggest that the four LAB seats elected by paid staff should be
non-voting seats. Unpaid Staff Unpaid Staff should retain the voting power of their four elected seats. Unpaid staff members serving on the LAB should be protected from dismissal
from their volunteer duties during their tenure as LAB members and also during
the campaign period. The only way to dismiss an unpaid staff member who is currently
serving on the LAB should be if unpaid staff votes for a recall election (of
all of its four seats), and in the new election, that staff member is not re-elected.
For one year following the end of an unpaid staff rep’s tenure on the LAB,
if the former rep believes that management has shifted her or his volunteer
duties in a way that constitutes retribution for actions performed while on
the LAB (or removed them from all duties in a retributive manner), the former
member may call a vote on this among unpaid staff. If unpaid staff agrees by
a simple majority that management’s actions constitute retribution, then management
may not shift these duties or dismiss that member from volunteer duties without
a vote of approval by the majority of unpaid staff. Management in this case
includes the LAB itself, if the LAB has the power to directly influence personnel
decisions at the station. |
top of page | governance proposals | bylaws etc | home |